- Sep 7, 2016
- 145
- 17
- 18
- 26
Do you guys have any preference for one of the other? To me it's something I've thought about all day. And from both scenes I noticed things.
NWOBHM
1. Took some influence from punk rock (sounds like around guitars and production)
2. A bit more melodic than thrash
3. Didn't really have a natural music enemy
4. Continuation of the first wave of heavy metal from their predecessors. Whom had more of a blues rock influence.
5. Varied a lot in what styles they went for.
But for things what I may call a downside or something that brought the NWOBHM down it'd be.
1. Could be boring at times. Based on tastes, like you may think it's never enough
2. It left as quick as it came. Which I think the New wave began in 1979 and ended in 1984 I think. Then Thrash took over.
3. Major record labels, style changes, and going underground. Which is where I think Saxon is at right. Underground. Raven and Diamond Head went onto a major record label, and the albums we got from them when they did. Were subpar. Canterbury and Stay Hard. In a way it kinda killed what NWOBHM was about. But I think there's ways it could've been made to work. And style change happened too. I don't really wanna go into too much detail there.
Thrash
1. Took a hell of a lot of influence from the American punk rock scene (Which I will not refer to as hardcore because that's just dumb).
2. More rhythmic, I hear a lot more of the bass following the drums then I do bass following the guitar and drums like I do with NWOBHM.
3. Had a natural enemy. Hair Metal, erghh. They were like the cobra and mongoose. Hated each other. Because one was a rip off and commercialization of true heavy metal. And the other was the spirit of the NWOBHM, after smoking meth and flying high with a vengeance.
4. Thrash can be repetitive. It can. Trust me, the drumming is usually what makes it sound the same. But it doesn't make it bad none the less
Downsides or so I think.
1. Burnout, some thrash metal bands had a habit of burning out after album number 2 or 3. It's raw energy, power, and speed. But I think at some point they used the best ideas first and that slightly killed them. That and they were inconsistent.
2. Repetition, as much as I said I was fine with it. It may have killed it off in a sense of them not really evolving their style or showing they can be diverse if they're only sticking to fast tempo drumming and thrash riffs with yelled vocals on social issues or death.
3. Lasted from 1983 to 1992. 9 years. What killed it afterwards is the rise of nu metal and alternative. No, better yet. Thrash committed suicide and saw revival around 2004. They wanted to show they can be different or jump on major label bandwagons for support. So they started doing alternative stuff. It alienated the fan base and killed what little support was left from around 1993-2003. But great, both of these genres are seeing revival.
So what do you think is better? And what do you prefer to listen to?
NWOBHM
1. Took some influence from punk rock (sounds like around guitars and production)
2. A bit more melodic than thrash
3. Didn't really have a natural music enemy
4. Continuation of the first wave of heavy metal from their predecessors. Whom had more of a blues rock influence.
5. Varied a lot in what styles they went for.
But for things what I may call a downside or something that brought the NWOBHM down it'd be.
1. Could be boring at times. Based on tastes, like you may think it's never enough
2. It left as quick as it came. Which I think the New wave began in 1979 and ended in 1984 I think. Then Thrash took over.
3. Major record labels, style changes, and going underground. Which is where I think Saxon is at right. Underground. Raven and Diamond Head went onto a major record label, and the albums we got from them when they did. Were subpar. Canterbury and Stay Hard. In a way it kinda killed what NWOBHM was about. But I think there's ways it could've been made to work. And style change happened too. I don't really wanna go into too much detail there.
Thrash
1. Took a hell of a lot of influence from the American punk rock scene (Which I will not refer to as hardcore because that's just dumb).
2. More rhythmic, I hear a lot more of the bass following the drums then I do bass following the guitar and drums like I do with NWOBHM.
3. Had a natural enemy. Hair Metal, erghh. They were like the cobra and mongoose. Hated each other. Because one was a rip off and commercialization of true heavy metal. And the other was the spirit of the NWOBHM, after smoking meth and flying high with a vengeance.
4. Thrash can be repetitive. It can. Trust me, the drumming is usually what makes it sound the same. But it doesn't make it bad none the less
Downsides or so I think.
1. Burnout, some thrash metal bands had a habit of burning out after album number 2 or 3. It's raw energy, power, and speed. But I think at some point they used the best ideas first and that slightly killed them. That and they were inconsistent.
2. Repetition, as much as I said I was fine with it. It may have killed it off in a sense of them not really evolving their style or showing they can be diverse if they're only sticking to fast tempo drumming and thrash riffs with yelled vocals on social issues or death.
3. Lasted from 1983 to 1992. 9 years. What killed it afterwards is the rise of nu metal and alternative. No, better yet. Thrash committed suicide and saw revival around 2004. They wanted to show they can be different or jump on major label bandwagons for support. So they started doing alternative stuff. It alienated the fan base and killed what little support was left from around 1993-2003. But great, both of these genres are seeing revival.
So what do you think is better? And what do you prefer to listen to?
